New filing in the Roberts case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “The Roberts Plaintiffs delivered a Notice of Appeal to the District Court in Chicago yesterday. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in turn, received and docketed the appeal and assigned No. 17-1880 to it.”

New filing in the Robinson case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “Because Treasury’s lawyer, Mark Stern, will be on vacation from July 31 through Aug. 18, the government is asking the Sixth Circuit to schedule oral argument after Aug. 18.”

New filing in the Fairholme case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “Judge Sweeny doesn’t want to hear anything more from Mr. Sammons in Fairholme v. U.S. or in any other case pending before the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, and she entered an order to that effect today.”

New filing in the Deloitte case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “Judge Scola declined the Edwards Plaintiffs’ invitation to alter or amend his substitution ruling saying that FHFA stands in the Edwards Plaintiffs’ shoes with respect to their claims against Deloitte.”

New filing in the Pagliara v. Fannie Mae case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “FHFA and Fannie Mae filed their reply in support of their motion to dismiss or for substitution today, maintaining that Fannie Mae is not a Delaware corporation and the Delaware Chancery Court has no jurisdiction over Fannie Mae. FHFA and Fannie Mae say the District of Columbia is the only venue in which there is general jurisdiction over Fannie Mae, but that’s not really important because HERA says that FHFA now stands in Mr. Pagliara’s shoes.”

New filing in the Robinson case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “Ms. Robinson filed her reply brief in the Sixth Circuit today. Ms. Robinson again urges the Sixth Circuit to adopt Judge Brown’s reasoning in her dissenting opinion in Perry v. Mnuchin, and looks to the Sixth Circuit to issue a ruling saying that the permissive language in sec. 4617(b) of HERA is more mandatory than FHFA and Treasury think and sec. 4617(f) of HERA is less of a sweeping ouster of the Judicial Branch than FHFA and Treasury want it to be. Ms. Robinson encourages the Sixth Circuit to rule in her favor and tell FHFA and Treasury that the Net Worth Sweep, while perhaps clever, is plainly wrong.”

New filing in the Perry case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “With the consent of the Institutional and Class Plaintiffs, the government asks the D.C. Circuit to extend the deadline to respond to the rehearing petitions to June 2.”

New filing in the Pagliara v. Fannie Mae case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, ‘”There is no merit to any of Fannie Mae’s dismissal arguments,” Mr. Pagliara tells the Delaware Chancery Court in a brief filed today. Mr. Pagliara points out that Fannie Mae volunteered to be treated as a Delaware corporation in 2002 — way before conservatorship. Mr. Pagliara debunks the argument the argument that he’s attempting to “restrain or affect” FHFA’s powers as a conservator. Mr. Pagliara tells the Court his request is proper because he wants to obtain factual information solely in Fannie Mae’s possession about how the company in which he is a shareholder was raped and in order to have intelligent conversations with fellow shareholders about how to restructure Fannie Mae.’

Filing in the Future Income Payments v. the CFPB case. Click here to view.
This lawsuit does not involve the GSEs. However, I will post court filings related to the CFPB lawsuits. If a court finds that the CFPB is unconstitutionally structured because it is an independent agency headed by a single director, it could affect the structure of the FHFA.

New filing in the Perry case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “The D.C. Circuit has directed Treasury, FHFA, Fanne and Freddie — if they want to — to file responses within the next 15 to the Institutional and Class Plaintiffs’ rehearing request on the limited topic about GSE shareholders’ expectations.”

New filings in the Jacobs and Hindes case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “Treasury filed its motion to dismiss Messrs. Jacobs and Hindes’ amended complaint today. A copy of Treasury’s motion is (linked above) and, because voluminous exhibits are annexed, a copy of Treasury’s opening brief is posted at http://bankrupt.com/misc/15-00708-0066.pdfIn addition to HERA’s purported obstacles to shareholder litigation, our government now raises a new sovereign immunity defense, and stakes out a position that Delaware and Virginia are inapplicable. Besides, Treasury tells Judge Sleet, Judges Lamberth and Reade have already published decisions in the government’s favor, so it would be much easier to place a rubber stamp on what they’ve decided.”

Additional filings in the Jacobs and Hindes case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “FHFA, Fannie and Freddie filed their motion to dismiss Messrs. Jacobs and Hindes’ amended complaint today. A copy of FHFA, Fannie and Freddie’s motion is (linked above) and, because voluminous exhibits are annexed, a copy of their opening brief is posted at http://bankrupt.com/misc/15-00708-0068.pdfThe trio stands on its tried and true arguments to date: HERA blocks shareholder litigation, FHFA stands in shareholders’ shoes, no conflict of interest exception exists, and federal law trumps any state law.”

New filing in the Fairholme case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “Judge Sweeney granted the government the 43-day extension it requested, and added some additional comments in her order (linked above) saying that she will also take a dim view of any further delay beyond the end of May.”

New filing in the Collins case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, ‘”A brief filed by another government agency in unrelated litigation in another court does not constitute authority,” FHFA tells Judge Atlas in a [myopic] Response filed this afternoon, adding that FHFA doesn’t see the inconsistency the Collins Plaintiffs see. I’m personally surprised by FHFA’s possible concession to GSE shareholders that there’s been no “adjudication of their rights” in extraordinarily vague language that would be incredibly hard to locate using any keyword search scheme appearing in the last sentence on page 2 of FHFA’s Response filed today.’

New filing in the Robinson case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “Treasury filed its brief this afternoon in the Sixth Circuit opposing Ms. Robinson’s challenge of the Net Worth Sweep. Treasury points the Sixth Circuit panel to HERA’s anti-injunction and shareholder succession provision as reasons to reject Ms. Robinson’s appeal, and argues that Treasury did nothing improper when it entered into the Third Amendment.”

2nd filing in the Fairholme case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “The government wants 43 additional days to comply with Judge Sweeney’s instructions to turn documents improperly withheld over to Fairholme. The government says it’s reviewed nearly half of the documents in the past six weeks and will start releasing them to Fairholme on Apr. 14. Fairholme tells Judge Sweeney it doesn’t object to the 43-day extension, but would take a dim view of any delay beyond the end of May.”

New filing in the Collins case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “The Collins Plaintiffs delivered a copy of a brief filed by the Department of Justice in Laccetti v. SEC, No. 16-1368 (D.C. Cir.), on Mar. 31, 2017, that they say directly contradicts FHFA’s position that says the Third Amendment would stand if FHFA were unconstitutionally organized. The Collins Plaintiffs tell Judge Atlas that the Department of Justice explains that while the agency action might not be immediately nullified, an unconstitutionally organized agency’s final decision would not be insulated from judicial review and should be reviewed by a validly constituted tribunal.”

2nd filing in the Fairholme case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “Our government is resisting paying Fairholme’s expenses to prosecute its motion to compel. In a reply filed today, our government tells Judge Sweeney that withholding documents from Fairholme was substantially justified and the amount Fairholme seeks far exceeds the range of reason.”

New filing in the Robinson case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “Mark Stern at the Dept. of Justice entered his appearance in the Robinson appeal pending in the Sixth Circuit on behalf of the Treasury Dept.”

2nd filing in the Saxton case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “Abby Wright at the Dept. of Justice entered her appearance in the Saxton appeal pending in the Eighth Circuit on behalf of the Treasury Dept., Matthew McDermott at Belin McCormick entered his appearance as local counsel for FHFA.”

New filings in the Saxton case.
Peter Chapman writes, “The Eighth Circuit received the Saxton Plaintiffs’ appeal and the Clerk has assigned No. 17-1727 to the proceeding. The Clerk sent and instructional letter (Doc. 1) to the parties yesterday, docketed the record (Doc. 2) received from the District Court, and entered a scheduling order (Doc. 3) directing the parties’ attention to these outside briefing deadlines:
May 24, 2017 — Saxton Plaintiffs to file Opening Brief;
June 23, 2017 — FHFA and Treasury to file Opening Briefs; and
July 7, 2017 — Saxton Plaintiffs to file Reply Brief.”

New filings in the Pagliara v. Fannie Mae case.Letter to the CourtExhibit 1Exhibit 2
Peter Chapman writes, “Fannie Mae sent a letter to Vice Chancellor Tamika-Montgomery today taking issue with Mr. Pagliara’s descriptions and characterizations of prior proceedings and applicable law, and indicating that, if its motion to dismiss or substitute is denied, Fannie Mae intends to challenge the breadth of Mr. Pagliara’s inspection request. Copies of the documents delivered to Vice Chancellor Tamika-Montgomery today are (linked above).”

New filing in the Fairholme case (Sammons Appeal), click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “The government opposes Mr. Sammons’ attempt to question the U.S. Court of Federal Claims’ constitutionally, and urges Judge Sweeney to reject Mr. Sammons’ renewed attempt to interject himself into this case.”

New filings in the Pagliara v. Fannie Mae case.
Peter Chapman writes, “Fannie Mae and FHFA delivered nine documents to the Delaware Chancery Court today:Doc. 23 — Fannie Mae and FHFA’s Motion to Dismiss or Substitute;Doc. 24 — a proposed order granting the motion to dismiss or substitute;Doc. 25 — Fannie Mae and FHFA’s Brief in Support of their motion to dismiss or substitute, arguing that (i) Fannie Mae isn’t a Delaware corporation the Delaware courts have no jurisdiction, (ii) FHFA stands in Fanne Mae shareholders’ shoes, (iii) HERA blocks all litigation FHFA doesn’t like, and (iv) Mr. Pagliara hasn’t stated a proper purpose for the records he wants to see;Doc. 26 — a certificate of compliance with mechanical details;Doc. 27 — a certificate of service;Doc. 28 — a collection of documents in support of Fannie Mae and FHFA’s Brief;Doc. 29 — a motion asking the court to rule on Fannie Mae and FHFA’s motion to dismiss or substitute before convening a trial on May 1;Doc. 30 — a proposed scheduling order; andDoc. 31 — a cover letter to Vice Chancellor Montgomery-Reeves transmitting that half-inch stack of paper to his chambers.”

New filing in the Collins case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “Judge Atlas entered an order this afternoon extending the deadline for the parties to submit a discovery and case management plan to June 12, and rescheduling the initial conference for 11:30 a.m. on June 19, 2017.”

3rd filing in the Collins case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “FHFA filed its reply in support of its cross-motion for summary judgment on the constitutionality of FHFA’s organizational structure. FHFA recycles its arguments that (A) even if the Collins Plaintiffs prevailed, the Net Worth Sweep would continue and (B) the Congress knew what it was doing and was acting properly when it organized FHFA under HERA.”

New filing in the Saxton case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “The Saxton Plaintiffs filed their Notice of Appeal indicating their intention to ask the U.S. Court of Appeals of the Eighth Circuit to review Judge Reade’s decision dismissing their lawsuit.”